Roma Locuta Est

August 13, 2023 (Steven O’Reilly) – Archbishop Viganò recently said some interesting things in his recent interview with Catholic Family News.  The full interview with Matt Gaspers, dated August 11, 2023, may be found at CFN INTERVIEWS VIGANÒ: Francis, Trump, Ukraine, Child Trafficking, and More.

While the interview should be read in its entirety at the site above, I am focusing below on what Archbishop Viganò said regarding to the 2013 conclave. In this most recent interview, Gaspers asked a question about a prior interview wherein the Archbishop spoke of 2013 conclave (emphasis added). Gaspers asked:

CFN: In a recent interview (here), you said that certain Cardinals “created by Benedict XVI have proved to be completely inferior to the expectations of faithful conservatives,” and that some of them “at the last Conclave witnessed things that they do not denounce publicly.” What things do you believe they witnessed and why do they not denounce them?

Archbishop Viganò’s reply, of which excerpts are taken, is provided below:

As for their silence on the events that took place during the Conclave, I see here as well a certain formally legalistic mentality prevailing over the urgent need to put an end to the subversive coup d’état of the deep church…

…I find it incomprehensible that a member of the College of Cardinals can confide to friends that he has witnessed facts that render the election of Jorge Mario null and void, and at the same time he does not want to denounce them publicly so as not to break the Pontifical secret: the secret that he has already broken by talking about it with those who can do nothing, which forces His Eminence into silence before the Church, whose Pastors could perhaps settle the question…

…The indiscretions of these Cardinals focus on the evidence of serious irregularities, without providing further details…

…If these confidences are true, I dare not think of the moral travail of those who are preparing to take the secret to the grave, when they would have had the opportunity of unmasking the intrigues and plots of the Saint Gallen Mafia. If they are not true, it would not make sense to talk about it even with the most trusted people (who, however, must have told others, since the news has leaked).

Above, Archbishop Viganò clearly states he knows of at least one cardinal who has “witnessed facts that render the election of Jorge Mario null and void.” Does Viganò know this firsthand from this Cardinal, being one the friends in whom he “confided” his observations, or did Viganò hear this report from one of “friends” in whom the Cardinal confided this information? In the latter case, it is something like hearsay. It just may be my faulty reading, but the way Viganò’s answer is written, for example, saying “if these confidences are true,” suggests to me he heard this information second-hand from the Cardinal’s “friends” and not from the Cardinal himself.  On top of that, as Viganò says himself, the Cardinal said what he did, apparently, “without providing further details.”  

So, in sum, it appears we have what is now, from Viganò, a third-hand account, of an original account which, in the first instance, was ‘without further details.’  Did the Cardinal state he saw “facts” that would invalidate the election of Cardinal Bergoglio, or is the latter conclusion the opinion of the “friends” based on the “facts” communicated to them by Cardinal?  I am not knocking Viganò for the report, but there is nothing to do with it as is.  We can’t evaluate whether the Cardinal’s “facts” are indeed problematic with regard to the conclave rules, or whether the “facts” would necessarily invalidate the election. That is the problem with dealing with second and third hand accounts.  

If the Cardinal is out there, and really has such information, then I would think the pontifical secret would not shield an invalid election.  This is common sense.  Therefore, it is difficult to be believe that a Cardinal would know an election was invalid, be troubled by it, but yet keep silent in such a way that nothing could be done about it. That is why it seems more probable to me that something in the story has been garbled in the retelling.

A Dubia Cardinal?  

Who is this Cardinal?  I don’t know, of course.  However, Viganò’s answer in a prior article seems to point to a possible candidate.  In a prior interview, Viganò speaking of the conclave says (emphasis added):

Not many survivors remain of the brave — let’s say so — of the Dubia, who at the last Conclave witnessed things that they do not denounce publicly. So, yes: they are all yes-men; which, for those who should defend the Holy Church usque ad effusionem sanguinis, is inconsistent to say the least.

Again, perhaps just my mistaken interpretation, but it seems to me Viganò is speaking of a surviving Dubia Cardinal, one who voted in the last conclave.  Two Dubia Cardinals currently survive, Burke and Brandmuller; but only Cardinal Burke voted in the conclave, Brandmuller being too old at the time. Furthermore, in the recent current interview, Viganò’s response appears to suggest as much again.  He speaks of Cardinals who “we heard them ask Bergoglio to resolve the Dubia without him even deigning to answer, and everything ended there;” a seeming general reference to the Dubia cardinals.

Then, a little later in the same recent interview text, Viganò prefaces further comments, saying “As for their silence on the events that took place during the Conclave…“. The “their” referring back, it would seem, to the Cardinals who asked Bergoglio to “resolves the Dubia.” Then, in the next paragraph this general reference to “their” becomes more specifically a “he“:  “I find it incomprehensible that a member of the College of Cardinals can confide to friends that he has witnessed facts that render the election of Jorge Mario null and void, and at the same time he does not want to denounce them publicly so as not to break the Pontifical secret…“.  Again, I find it “incomprehensible” as well, as common sense and duty would demand such a cardinal step forward; and the very fact he has not, suggests to me something has become garbled in the story along the way.

So, if I were to hazard a guess, as I am, then it seems to me the evidence suggests Viganò may be speaking of Cardinal Burke.  If so, I don’t see anything in the public record of what Cardinal Burke has ever said that would support the notion he doubted the validity of Bergoglio’s election. He has defended  Benedict XVI’s use of ministerium in the Declaratio as being interchangeable with munus.  Along with all the other Dubia cardinals, he rejected the notion that Benedict had resigned the papacy in part or had bifurcated it.  Moreover, in an interview with Patrick Coffin that included questions about the possibility the 2013 conclave was invalid, Cardinal Burke gave no fuel at all to such speculations, and indeed indicated it would be very hard to prove the election was invalid. If he had certain knowledge the 2013 conclave was invalid, it is hard to imagine he would have been so definitive.

Final Thoughts

Personally, I would love to see a Cardinal come forward with rock-solid, iron clad evidence the 2013 conclave was invalid. If — and that is a BIG if — there is such a Cardinal out there with such information, I definitely hope he comes forward — and he should. If he is out there, at a minimum, he must bring his “facts” to the attention of the next conclave, so that a future pope can order an investigation into the matter.  However, if the Cardinal in question does not come forward, then perhaps the ‘friends’ in whom he ‘confided’ his account might do so in some fashion — perhaps making themselves available for interviews.  Preserving the Cardinal’s and their own anonymity, perhaps they might give their accounts to a trusted Vaticanista, such as a Marco Tosatti, or an Aldo Valli.  Just a thought.

There is evidence that there was campaigning leading up to the conclave in 2013, and in my opinion, this likely included Cardinal Bergoglio himself, and this was perhaps covered up in the McCarrick report (see Glaring Omission in McCarrick Report: What about the “Influential Italian Gentleman?”). The problem, of course, is finding evidence that would invalidate a conclave. Even on the question of campaigning, if campaigning via bribery for the papacy (i.e., simony) does not invalidate a papal election, and it doesn’t (see UDG 78), then it is hard to see how a ‘lesser’ charge of campaigning without a simoniacal angle could invalidate a papal election. 

As for the 2013 Conclave, I do think some very odd things did happen — that’s just a simple historical fact; from the Influential Italian Gentleman (HERE) — and his potential identity (see HERE), a pre-dawn police raid on morning of the conclave that seemingly sunk the papal chances of Cardinal Bergoglio’s chief conclave rival, Cardinal Scola (see HERE and HERE), to McCarrick exclaiming “We did it!” upon hearing the news immediately following Bergoglio’s election (see HERE) etc.  I’ve written about all of this in Roma Locuta Est’s Conclave Chronicles, and Roma Locuta Est article (see Five Questions about the 2013 Conclave for the Historical Record); as well as my LifeSiteNews article touching upon some of the conclave mysteries (see There are still many unsolved mysteries surrounding the 2013 election of Cdl. Bergoglio to the papacy).

I do think the next or some other future pope should order a thorough investigation of the 2013 conclave, but one should not hold one’s breath that the Francis pontificate will be undone by that.

Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. A former intelligence officer, he and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta. He has written apologetic articles, and is author of Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms; and of Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. (Follow on twitter at @fidelispia for updates). He asks for your prayers for his intentions.  He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com  or StevenOReilly@ProtonMail.com (or follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA or on GETTR, TruthSocial, or Gab: @StevenOReilly).